4.6 Article

Physical and Antibacterial Properties of Sodium Alginate-Sodium Carboxymethylcellulose Films Containing Lactococcus lactis

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23102645

关键词

edible films; Lactococcus lactis; sodium alginate; sodium carboxymethylcellulose

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51703147]
  2. Sichuan Science and Technology Program [2018RZ0057, 2018RZ0034]
  3. Natural Science Fund of Education Department of Sichuan Province [16ZB0044, 035Z1373]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Edible films have gradually become a research focus for food packaging materials due to a variety of benefits, including environmental friendliness, good barrier properties, and good carrying capacity. In this experimental study, we used sodium alginate as a film-forming substrate, sodium carboxymethylcellulose as a modifier, and glycerol as a plasticizer, then Lactococcus lactis was added to film solutions to form bacteriostatic films via the tape casting method. With the addition of Lactococcus lactis, the films did not significantly change thickness, while the transparency decreased and a significant increase in red and yellow hues was observed. Meanwhile, the dispersion of bacterial cells in film solutions destroyed intermolecular interactions in the solutions during film formation and increased the volume of voids in the Lactococcus lactis-containing films, thereby slightly decreasing the tensile strength of the films, but significantly increasing water vapor permeability. Moreover, the films with added Lactococcus lactis showed significant bacteriostatic activity against Staphylococcus aureus at 4 degrees C. In a seven-day bacteriostatic test, the films with Lactococcus lactis added at a level of 1.5 g/100 g resulted in a decrease in the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus by at least four logarithmic units. This study of Lactococcus lactis-containing films has provided a new method and strategy for antibacterial preservation of foods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据